Abrupt change to telephone follow-up clinics in a regional rheumatology service during COVID-19: analysis of treatment decisions

Effectiveness of telehealth versus in-person care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

In this systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of telehealth with in-person care during the pandemic using PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from March 2020 to April 2023. We included English-language, U.S.-healthcare relevant studies comparing telehealth with in-person care conducted after the onset of the pandemic. Two reviewers independently screened search results, serially extracted data, and independently assessed the risk of bias and strength of evidence. We identified 77 studies, the majority of which (47, 61%) were judged to have a serious or high risk of bias. Differences, if any, in healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes between in-person and telehealth care were generally small and/or not clinically meaningful and varied across the type of outcome and clinical area. For process outcomes, there was a mostly lower rate of missed visits and changes in therapy/medication and higher rates of therapy/medication adherence among patients receiving an initial telehealth visit compared with those receiving in-person care. However, the rates of up-to-date labs/paraclinical assessment were also lower among patients receiving an initial telehealth visit compared with those receiving in-person care. Most studies lacked a standardized approach to assessing outcomes. While we refrain from making an overall conclusion about the performance of telehealth versus in-person visits the use of telehealth is comparable to in-person care across a variety of outcomes and clinical areas. As we transition through the COVID-19 era, models for integrating telehealth with traditional care become increasingly important, and ongoing evaluations of telehealth will be particularly valuable.

Global Perspective on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Rheumatology and Health Equity

Although the public health emergency associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, challenges remain, especially for individuals with rheumatic diseases. We aimed to assess the historical and ongoing effects of COVID-19 on individuals with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology practices globally, with specific attention to vulnerable communities and lessons learned. We reviewed literature from several countries and regions, including Africa, Australia and New Zealand, China, Europe, Latin America, and the US. In this review, we summarize literature that not only examines the impact of the pandemic on individuals with rheumatic diseases, but also research that reports the lasting changes to rheumatology patient care and practice, and health service use. Across countries, challenges faced by individuals with rheumatic diseases during the pandemic included disruptions in health care and medication supply shortages. These challenges were associated with worse disease and mental health outcomes in some studies, particularly among those who had social vulnerabilities defined by socioeconomic, race, or rurality. Moreover, rheumatology practice was impacted in all regions, with the uptake of telemedicine and changes in health care utilization. While many regions developed rapid guidelines to disseminate scientific information, misinformation and disinformation remained widespread. Finally, vaccine uptake among individuals with rheumatic diseases has been uneven across the world. As the acute phase of the pandemic wanes, ongoing efforts are needed to improve health care access, stabilize rheumatology drug supplies, improve public health communication, and implement evidence-based vaccination practices to reduce COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among individuals with rheumatic diseases.

The feasibility and effectiveness of telecare consultations in nurse-led post-acute stroke clinics: A study protocol

Background

Globally, nurse-led post-acute stroke clinics have been developed to provide secondary care services to stroke survivors. Although synthesized evidence supports the idea that the secondary prevention services delivered by nurses in these clinics can improve the functional ability of stroke survivors and reduce their readmission rates, long travel and waiting times, high costs, and the pandemic have limited the utilization of such clinics. Telecare consultations are a new modality for expanding public access to healthcare services, although how it can be applied in nurse-led clinics has not been reported.

Objective

The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility and effects of telecare consultations in nurse-led post-acute stroke clinics.

Methods

The study adopts a quasi-experimental design. The participants will receive three secondary stroke care consultations in 3 months provided via telecare by experienced advanced practice nurses. The outcome measures include feasibility (reasons for refusing to participate and for dropping-out, the attitudes and satisfaction of both the advanced practice nurses and their patients towards the programme), and preliminary effectiveness (degree of disability after stroke, activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, depression) outcomes. Data will be collected at pre-(T1) and post-(T2) intervention.

Conclusions

The findings of this study may help facilitate the implementation of telecare consultations in a nurse-led post-acute stroke clinic, which may benefit the stroke survivors who are having mobility restrictions from accessing customary healthcare services and may protect them from being exposed to the infectious risk.

Comparison of Teleconsultations and In-Person Consultations from Outpatients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Internal Audit of Medical Notes

Introduction: The objectives of this study were to compare the quality-of-care and compliance with medical record regulations between in-person consultations (QIP and CIP) and telephone consultations (QTP and CTP), from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outpatients, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore the impact of the consultation modality on the treatment. Methods: Data from 324 medical notes corresponding to rheumatic consultations between July and December 2020 were abstracted. Notes were selected considering a stratified (in-person and telephone consultations) random sampling strategy. QIP, CIP, QTP, and CTP were scored based on prespecified criteria as percentages, where higher numbers translated into better standards. Logistic regression analysis investigated the association between the consultation modality and the treatment recommendation (dependent variable). Results: There were 208 (64.2%) medical notes related to in-person consultations and 114 (35.2%) to telephone consultations. Overall, medical notes corresponded to middle-aged women with long-standing disease. QIP was superior to QTP (median, interquartile range): 60% (60-75%) versus 50% (25-60%), p ≤ 0.001, and differences were related to disease activity and prognosis documentation (81.3% vs. 34.5% and 55.8% vs. 33.6%, respectively, p ≤ 0.001) and the prolonged prescription of glucocorticoids with a documented management plan (58.5% vs. 30.4%, p = 0.045). Meanwhile, CIP and CTP were similar. Telephone consultation was a significant risk factor for no changes in the treatment recommendation (odds ratio: 2.113, 95% confidence interval: 1.284-3.479, p = 0.003), and results were consistent in the 142 medical notes with documented absence of disease activity. Conclusions: In the clinical context of RA, the quality-of-care provided by telephone consultations is below the standard of care and impacts the treatment.